Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Is it just me or does the CIT flightpath on at least 2 occasions in their cartoon show the plane hitting 2 trees?
Were those trees moved by the NWO the same day that the NWO removed the light poles WITHOUT A SINGLE SOUL seeing them?
I am just asking questions.

Originally posted by turbofan
Why does everyone who says, "CIT Witnesses all say the plane hit the Pentagon" totally forget the official story stating that AA77 knocked down the
light poles?

Can you guys not come up with a solution to satisfy the entire equation?

Was it NoC and Pentagon impact with staged light poles, or 13 people made
up a story from the depths of their fantasies and all 13 have a similar
flight path.

What are the odds of that? Think about it.

Does it really matter? *Everyone* who was in a position to see the aircraft hit says the aircraft hit. The brutal truth that the CIT Sleuths and the
PfT boys don't want to pony up to is that the aircraft did not fly "north of the NEX service station" because the light poles were knocked down by
the aircraft.

What has always befuddled me (perhaps you can explain it, TF), is how the CIT and PFT boys always characterize any misstatement from anyone or any
degree of error in the description of what happened as a "lie". Like most other things that come out of the CIT/PFT sound machine, it is becoming a
bit of an over-used trite boilerplate. Those 13 people didn't make up stories from the depth of their fantasies (as you so poetically oput it) -
they simply erred in their description of where the aircraft was. Simple as that. They didn't lie...the aren't making crap up...they aren't
inventing stuff....they are simply wrong. The physical evidence and the scores of other witnesses and evidence show that clearly.

I ran the numbers through my calculator and got figures close to those you quoted IE 7000' radius and near 70 degrees of bank. I don't require
online calculators to determine this as it isn't such a difficult problem to analyse and if I get the time to actually view the latest production I
may try to see where the discrepancy is.

It's somewhat odd that this conjectured flight path is now being claimed to be 'proven' as a possibility while the path through the poles is
similarly 'proven' impossible. Both claims are from the same source - hmmm

Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade.

They did ignore many witness statements regarding the bank angles:

The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady.

-Phillip Thompson

Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing
4 ......The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the
FOB).........The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later
found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110).

-Terry Morin

"We saw what I estimate to be about the last seven seconds of the flight. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there
was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way. It was headed straight for its target

-Mitch Mitchell

seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon..............He was
slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to
level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower

-Albert Hemphill

At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level...

-Mike Dobbs

''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''

-James R. Cissell

"Then it shot straight across from where we are (the sheraton) and flew right into the Pentagon.

Cameronfox, those witnesses you listed accounts' have not been confirmed/verified and even Albert Hemphill alleged statement places the plane on the
NoC route(over Navy Anex). It's also very probable that some witnesses would be in a position making it difficult to decifer the aircraft's bank
angle, especially since all you have listed are unconfirmed media accounts not directly from their own mouths.

>>Just as predicted it is a combination of disregarding inconvenient
>>witnesses, illusions, incorrect radius calculations.

Incorrect. We calculated several paths based on witness statements
and used many different speeds to show the aerodynamic possibilities.
The radii were measured with scale USGS topography and accurate
arc measurement tools (unlike Reheat's mess).

>>The FIRST path shows the aircraft impacting near the helipad (pardon
>>me, flying over the helipad) That radius is close enough and the
>> calculations appear to be accurate.

They are accurate.

>>So that still rather extreme bank angle is planted in the viewers mind
>>as being aerodynamically possible at FDR speeds, no less!

It's an example to show how incorrect the loyalists are. It's an extreme
speed with a perfectly acceptable bank angle for a commerical airliner.
Point is; it's aerodynamically possible. Period.

>>Now, when it switches to the proper impact point, the razzle dazzle
>> crap begins. The radius is WRONG.

>>The radius for that flight path is approximately 7025'. That computes
>> to a bank angle of 67.4 degrees, 2.6 G's at 460 knots.

Show us your flight path and arc measurements. Until then you're just
dreamin' buddy.

>>That flight path from Paik CAN NOT be adjusted to an increased radius
>>and still pass North of the station and to the impact point. Of course, it
>>can be flown at a slower speed and that is implied throughout the >>cartoon.

Watch the video again. You are lost. The radius was DECREASED!
It went from 12,xxx feet to 11, 010 and is STILL aero possible.

>>They can draw any flight path they want if it ignores key witnesses.
>>What does that prove?

The flight paths were averaged from the witness drawings. We used
THEIR recreations and explanations. We also drew alternate paths to
cover all the bases. What does that prove? That is aero possible!

>> Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire
>> charade. There is a good reason for that.

The good reason is, the value is insignificant and more important, the
Annex is about 150 feet higher than the Pentagon roof top ASL.

The distance between the buildings is 2580 feet (edge to edge). We can
easily show a pull up and be WELL within aero limits of the alleged aircraft.

This is all addressed in the tech note. Your pull up excuse is a non issue.

>>Oh, and we'll also throw in a large aircraft at about 35 degrees of bank
>>after take-off executing an idiotic low altitude turn just to show them it
>>can be done. We just won't tell everyone that that's a lesser bank and
>> G than any of our postulated turns require when we adhere to what
>>the witnesses said.

That is false. The bank in the clip is well within most of the calculated
radii presented in the video. The video also shows a slower speed than
most of the calculations which indicates that an aircraft of that type can
sustain a slow , high bank turn without stalling.

By increasing the speed at a given bank, the stall factor becomes less of
an issue.

You will also note that all calculted banks and speeds returned a g load
of less than 2 g's which leaves a nice buffer for anyone crying about
structural limits.

Again, this is also covered in the tech paper.

We really expected all the loyalists to cry when the video was released,
but this is too funny. Do you have any real pilots that can back up
your nonsense, or will you continue to pick out invalid points an spin
them?

We're waiting for anyone to debate this in an open, live and broadcasted
forum.

Also feel free to visit the P4T site and debate with real pilots about your
false claims.

If the light poles were not knocked down by "AA77", you would consider
this insignificant?

You do recall that your government claims the aircraft knocked down the
poles? How can anyone let such a significant piece of the story slide?
I just don't understand the loyalists.

What is it with these hypocrites? They have approved the Pilots For 9/11 Truth math now, and they want to pretend the light poles are not
important? What about Reheat's math which now turns out to be a swamp of stinky hogwash? Two days ago they were staking their reputations on
Reheat's ridiculous red herring math. Now what? These pseudoskeptics are the strangest people who ever lived. They move the goal posts every time
they turn around.

So are these government loyalists sticking by the government OFFICIAL STORY or not sticking by the government OFFICIAL STORY?
Sheesh.

It's excellent to see how not a single pseudo-skeptic has doubted the accuracy of his math!

Fact is, the only reason Captain Bob made yet another cartoon was to attempt to silence the members of the JREF forum. The folk there told him to
dance, and like a puppet he danced.

Turbofan who is now a member here was laughed at at the JREF forum so committed a suicide by mod as predicted. HE even appealed to other forums to get
professionals to agree with him. He failed there as well.

To suggest not a single skeptic here has not shown the math to be inaccurate does not mean it is or isnt. There is much being said and
laughed at over at the JREF forum. You should know this because you guys still frequent the forum. Thus the only reason why math was attempted.

>>Turbofan who is now a member here was laughed at at the JREF forum
>>so committed a suicide by mod as predicted.

That is a false claim. I have screen shots of the PM history between
an immature member and myself. Basically, Bobert cried to a mod
when I told him off in private for posting BS in a tech thread.

The screen shots are in my hands, and you can all read how this "suicide
by mod" is just an attempt to spin. Point is, if Bobert was man enough
to handle his PM's instead of crying, I'd still be schooling the members
of JREF.

>> HE even appealed to other forums to get professionals to agree with
>> him. He failed there as well.

MacGyver is not an FDR expert (self admitted). He has refused to show how
a transient could get passed filter circuitry and initiate an erase process
as outlined by the Intel documentation which I supplied.

He failed. not me. I'm still waiting for his explanation and confrontation
about the Intel Strata Flash documentation which clearly kills his theory.

>>There is much being said and laughed at over at the JREF forum. You
>>should know this because you guys still frequent the forum. Thus the
>>only reason why math was attempted.

Incorrect. The math proves NoC and exposes the faceless no-names
that try to cover the OGCT. The tech note, math, and video will serve
as a tool to shunt futher lies coming from JREF. It will also serve as a
resource for researchers and those who wish to contact their local authorities,
news, government officials, etc.

Nobody on JREF has been able to prove the math wrong. They are just
crying and complaining because we proved NoC is aerodynamically possible.

They want us to use FDR speeds from a source which does not support
NoC.

They want us to show pull up force required for a building that is already
lower in elevation than the Annex.

They just keep crying behind their monitors while picking out useless info.

We can easily show that a pull up (ascent) is well within 757-200 limits
using several examples. The problem is, then they'll cry about the colour
of the grass...or the lack of brain cells they have.

It's all covered in the tech note in any case. We'll wait for them to scream
once we release that.

They resort to micro-scrutinizing the eyewitness accounts as if none of them are allowed to be remotely incorrect even by a few feet.

This is yet another source of their blatant hypocrisy in this argument.

When it comes to the official path they are willing to accept that all the witnesses were wildly mistaken and witnessed the same thing that just so
happens to be drastically different from the official alleged reality.

But when it comes to the north side now all of the sudden they require all the witnesses to be be mathematically accurate computers with brains locked
on a network together despite their drastically different perspectives etc.

For the billionth time the witnesses only need to be GENERALLY correct for a deception to be proven.

North of Columbia Pike.

Over the Navy Annex.

North of CITGO.

They don't have to be mathematically accurate to be reconcilable with each other and it is unreasonable to expect them to be.

But the evidence proves the plane was on the north side and now the math proves this is perfectly possible for a CONVENTIONAL aircraft.

However the decoy jet used in this proven military black operation was most likely NOT a conventional aircraft anyway.

I could be wrong, but part of the math was to include the plane being able to pull up and over the pentagon. This was not done in the most recent
cartoon. However, Turbofan has stated that it is in written documentation.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I could be wrong, but part of the math was to include the plane being able to pull up and over the pentagon. This was not done in the most recent
cartoon. However, Turbofan has stated that it is in written documentation.

You are wrong (as usual).

The pull -up math is insignificant. As you will see in the tech note based on
elevations, topography, etc.

We're waiting for "Reheat" and John Farmer to give us supported points
for the math so there will be ZERO excuses.

I'm not scared, but I have a feeling we'll be waiting a while for either
of them to give us reasonable data points based on witness statements.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.